and courage beyond his years? Add to this, that he also defended
his father in court, and saved him from a plot of his powerful
enemies, that he heaped upon him a second and a third consulship
and other posts which were coveted even by consulars, that when his
father was poor he bestowed upon him the plunder which he took by
military licence, and that he made him rich with the spoils of the
enemy, which is the greatest honour of a soldier. If even this did
not repay his debt, add to it that he caused him to be constantly
employed in the government of provinces and in special commands,
add, that after he had destroyed the greatest cities, and became
without a rival either in the east or in the west, the acknowledged
protector and second founder of the Roman Empire, he bestowed upon
one who was already of noble birth the higher title of "the father
of Scipio;" can we doubt that the commonplace benefit of his birth
was outdone by his exemplary conduct, and by the valour which was
at once the glory and the protection of his country? Next, if this
be not enough, suppose that a son were to rescue his father from
the torture, or to undergo it in his stead. You can suppose the
benefits returned by the son as great as you please, whereas the
gift he received from his father was of one sort only, was easily
performed, and was a pleasure to the giver; that he must
necessarily have given the same thing to many others, even to some
to whom he knows not that he has given it, that he had a partner in
doing so, and that he had in view the law, patriotism, the rewards
bestowed upon fathers of families by the state, the maintenance of
his house and family: everything rather than him to whom he was
giving life. What? supposing that any one were to learn philosophy
and teach it to his father, could it be any longer disputed that
the son had given him something greater than he had received from
him, having returned to his father a happy life, whereas he had